Search XMemo Knowledge

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it operates 'over published current revisions,' supports 'bounded pagination,' and requires the 'knowledge:read' permission. This addresses auth needs and scope, which annotations do not convey.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, dense sentence that front-loads the primary purpose ('Search authorized personal Knowledge Base content') and then covers the secondary addressed-read mode and the auth requirement. Every phrase earns its place, with no filler or repetition of schema content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is complex with 9 parameters and two distinct modes, and an output schema is present. The description gives a reasonable overview but does not explicitly connect query to search mode or knowledge_item_id/knowledge_revision_id to addressed read mode. It is adequate for orientation but leaves the agent to infer mode-parameter relationships from the schema, so there is a clear completeness gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'bounded pagination' and 'exact item/revision,' which loosely maps to offset, limit_chars, knowledge_item_id, and knowledge_revision_id, but it does not add syntax or decision details beyond what the schema already provides. No parameter is left undocumented, but the description also does not enhance parameter understanding.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Search authorized personal Knowledge Base content' and 'read one exact item/revision.' It clearly identifies the tool as a Knowledge Base search/read operation, which distinguishes it from memory-focused siblings like recall and read_memory. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools, so it stops just short of full differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage by describing two modes: searching published current revisions and performing an addressed read with bounded pagination. This gives an agent a sense of when to call the tool, but it provides no explicit alternatives, exclusions, or guidance on choosing between search and addressed read modes. Sibling tools exist for related memory operations, but no comparison is made.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.